Nadra Iqbal vs State of Up and 3 Others

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:1078-DB

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶3

(Sl. No.11)

¶4

Court No. - 21

¶5

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39761 of 2024

¶6

Petitioner :- Nadra Iqbal Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd Ajmal Farooqui,Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar Counsel for Respondent :- Brijendra Kumar,C.S.C.,Pawan Kumar Singh

¶7

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶8

1. The instant petition is directed against the orders dated 14.10.2024 and 28.10.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 and for restraining the respondents from demolishing the shop of the petitioner situated in building no. 797A/1 Mohalla Chak Raghunath, Naini, Pargana Arail, Tehsil Karchana, District- Allahabad during pendency of the stay application before the Appellate Authority.

¶9

2. Vide an order dated 22.12.2023, passed by Zonal Officer Prayagraj Development Authority, Prayagraj, the alleged illegal construction made by the petitioner were directed to be demolished in exercise of power under Section 27(1) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. The said order was subjected to challenge by the petitioner in appeal before the Commissioner of the Division. The appeal was allowed vide order dated 19.09.2024 and the order of demolition dated 22.12.2023 was set aside. The Development Authority was directed to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh order. On 14.10.2024, fresh order was passed by the Zonal Officer, Prayagraj Development Authority, Prayagraj for demolition of the offending constructions. The petitioner had preferred an appeal against the said order and it is stated to be pending. It is also the case of the petitioner that he had filed a stay application before the Appellate Authority but the same has not been considered so far.

¶10

3. On 28.10.2024, the Zonal Officer Prayagraj Development Authority, Prayagraj passed an order stating that the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by order dated 19.09.2024 and therefore, demolition order has to be given effect to. Accordingly, the petitioner was required to demolish the constructions himself failing which it would be demolished by the Development Authority and the expenses incurred in this regard would be recovered from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. The said order is also under challenge.

¶11

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the stay application before the Appellate Authority, the respondent Development

¶12

Authority cannot proceed to demolish the constructions. He further submits that order dated 28.10.2024 is ex facie illegal inasmuch as it wrongly mentions that the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed although vide order dated 19.09.2024, the order of demolition was set-aside and the matter was remitted back for a fresh consideration.

¶13

5. Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the respondent Development Authority, submits that there is a typographical error in the order dated 28.10.2024. In fact, after remand of the matter by the Appellate Authority, the Zonal Officer had passed a fresh demolition order on 14.10.2024 and in fact it is the said order which was to be given effect to.

¶14

6. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 27(2) of the Act before the Appellate Authority is pending and the stay application filed by the petitioner has yet not been considered by the Appellate Authority. An order directing demolition entails serious civil consequences and therefore, during pendency of the appeal the demolition order cannot be permitted to be given effect to, otherwise very purpose of filing the appeal would stand defeated. In such a situation, we dispose of the instant petition with direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the application within four weeks from the date of communication of the instant order.

¶15

7. The petitioner will file true attested copy of the instant order before the Appellate Authority positively within a week from today and in which event no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner until the stay application is decided by the Appellate Authority. We clarify that the stay application shall be dealt with by the Appellate Authority without being influenced by any observation made in the instant order.

¶16

8. It is further desirable that the appeal itself is decided expeditiously.

¶17

Order Date :- 3.1.2025 Shubham Arya/o.k.

¶18

(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.)

¶19

Digitally signed by :- OM KRISHNA CHOUDHARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nadra Iqbal v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadra Iqbal v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Pal and 9 Others vs Union of India and 5 Others

Mohd. Shakeel and 160 Others vs State of Up and 3 Others

M/S Uppal Chadha Hi Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Babu vs State of Up and 2 Others

Chandra Kala Devi vs National Highways Authority of India through Its Project Director and 2 Others

Badal Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others